Comment: After working with other folks on some of our maps in the community profile, I think that all of our maps are a good start. I hope that future updates on the maps to be geared to assist the upcoming work to update our Swan Valley Growth Policy in our area in Missoula County.
As far as having the Lake County portion of the Swan Valley Watershed shown in our maps – that's fine for one map, perhaps, in order to put the whole Swan Valley drainage in perspective. But if we include the Lake County area on all the maps, we'll sacrifice detail for our Missoula County portion which is where our planning happens, and this is more important.
Information that we would like to see in more detail on the maps is:
* which areas of private land currently available for building. How specifically are these lands subdivided – i.e. 1 building/10 acres, per 20 acres?
* how much of that bare ground falls within wetlands, streams or rivers,
* what is the density of the current subdivisions,
* within the current bare land subdivisions, is there adequate room for wildlife to move around? Are they located near existing roads?
* what would be the considerations in the maps that might impact economic development? Are there certain undeveloped parcels more suitable for small-scale industry?
* how can the maps reflect concerns about long-term forest health, cutting volume and fire-wise select cutting
* Can the maps show areas in the swan that could be developed as campsites to encourage tourism?
* What information can the maps show that could encourage outdoor recreational business opportunities?
I'm sure there's other thoughts about how to present this information on maps. Maybe we could choose 4 or 5 key maps and use plastic overlays to show other information that each key map encompasses.
Map name: All maps
Friday, September 9, 2011 at 1:43PM